SAXON issue kS98
- Thread starter ersatz
- Start date
PrayingMantis
Senior Member
Nice find, that’s pretty neat! I still think the kS98 cypher is an accidental AR though. There is a distinct A with no separate line for the top of the F.By inaugaration ordered the king a new ruler monogram, as here visible this is the second version of FAR. And the corunovation to King was made in late 1904 so its possible already produced proof stamps were used for prepared GR05 stamp, even this stamp is not real because the King Georg died before start of 1905. Nothing strange for me.
Sachsen-Albertinische Linie Tragbare Silbermedaille Friedrich August III. 1904-1918. Fast Stempelglanz
Sachsen-Albertinische Linie Tragbare Silbermedaille Friedrich August III. 1904-1918. Fast Stempelglanz ✓ MA-Shop Kauf mit Garantie ✓ Angebot mit Münzen und Medaillen von der Antike bis zum Euro.www.ma-shops.de
Attachments
AndyB
Senior Member
I dont have the Ian Jackson book, so i couldnt confirm anything but in 1913-15 was not ruler AR but FAR so using of obsolete but little upgraded stamp is possible for this You should detailed compare a AR stamp of 1902 with this stamp, when You means its identical. Personally i dont believe they would used 3 years a wrong proof. There could be only large side by side comparation of similar pieces anyway the presented stamp is damaged by rust.
PrayingMantis
Senior Member
Here is the comparison. I don’t think they used it for three years though, only briefly in 1914 then switched to the correct FA cypher.
Here’s what Jackson has to say about it.
Here’s what Jackson has to say about it.
Attachments
AndyB
Senior Member
I personally see problem by this stamp firstly the crown is out of monogram as to compare the 02 stamp, the stamp is not identical, other point which brings me as problematic is the date that was stamped independently by each digit, and thirdly there exist a strange piece with identical stamp in Voronov Book piece p.202 which have 15 date which is too stamped separate.The blade was stamped WKC. The piece is strange because S98nAS accepted in 1915!! This brings me to opinion, similar stamps are little strange mainly when compared the stamps on Williams on page 282, where is presented AR 93 and 94, where is the crown directly on monogram and date was stamped clearly with one die not by separate digits. here is evident on that piece, that something was under.
Last edited:
AndyB
Senior Member
There are evidently problem by the stamps. I would compare consistency of the E proof with other proof on that bayonets. On the left piece it looks like the 4 is stamped over rust. the digits are identical on both bayonets, but the right piece 4 is higher positioned as the left one, so this could be only in case of separate stamps with separate digits 1 and 4, similar stamping is hard to believe on normal production.
Last edited:
Great find Ted! Thanks for showing it.
S98nAS made in 1915 are mentioned on pg. 65 of German Bayonets Volume II by Anthony Carter where he records two Saxon examples made by WKC. The AR cypher is commonly found on 1914 and 1915 dated Saxon WKC edged weapons.
S98nA & S98nAS from my collection:
Page below from German Cavalry and Artillery Swords 1742-1918 by Janusz Jaroslawski:
Unaligned separate digit stamps is normal for Saxon 1914 dated CG Haenal kS98, another is shown on pg. 49 in Ian Jackson's book.
AndyB
Senior Member
Thanks for adding similar pieces and correcting me, as visible there exist various pieces with this stamp, personally i have problem with the S98nAS 15 marked piece from WKC presented in Voronov book, as the WK&Cie type logo is too late for 1914, this stamp was not used so late when comparing other WKC stamps, but is possible the acceptance was overstamped on older production bayonet. Strange for me too that they used not GR stamp which was predecessor of FA but switched to much older AR stamp. I believe the WK&Cie presented in Voronov book could be stored and later reproofed, that would explain the older maker stamp and evidently restamped proofs.
The Rudiger book speaks about ending the S98 production in September 1914, anyway a Saxony could be a oddity on this. Rudiger wrote too that many were flashguard equiped as visible on Your middle piece.
I believe that the date stamp was one piece, but in war time the digits could be wrongly alligned, which when i compare Your presented NCO sabre 15 date and the Voronov S98nAS 15 looks like identically aligned larger 5 in lower position in 15 date stamp. The AR property stamp could be explained by damage of normal FA property stamp (KS98 ) and wartime period, in peace time would be this probably not real.
The Rudiger book speaks about ending the S98 production in September 1914, anyway a Saxony could be a oddity on this. Rudiger wrote too that many were flashguard equiped as visible on Your middle piece.
I believe that the date stamp was one piece, but in war time the digits could be wrongly alligned, which when i compare Your presented NCO sabre 15 date and the Voronov S98nAS 15 looks like identically aligned larger 5 in lower position in 15 date stamp. The AR property stamp could be explained by damage of normal FA property stamp (KS98 ) and wartime period, in peace time would be this probably not real.
Last edited:
You're welcome Andy. The WK&Cie Solingen marking is correct for 1914 and 1915 S98. The manufacturer marking found on earlier dated S98 is normally WK&C Solingen.
Also of note is the earlier dated WK&C have the manufacturer marking on the right ricasso whereas the 1914-1915 dated have it on the left. I don't have a copy of the Voronov book, but judging by your photo above the right ricasso is blank so the maker mark is on the left which is correct.
Regarding the inspection stamp that appears hammered over it's possible the stamp was just done too light or was illegible and the inspector then cleaned up the area and re-stamped it.
Left to right: AR14, AR15, W06.
AndyB
Senior Member
Thanks for additional pictures and clarification,You are correct offcoarse, i should say i probably switched the both 2 row maker mark versions of WKC, the WK&C is a early stamp reported around 1906/7 on S98, and WK&Cie is reported from later period, typical to see on export brazil M1908 contract too. I was going to wrong opinion as missread or switch the versions of maker stamp. Thanks for details about the side marking, that is too interesting.
I observed now where by me started the error opinion, as i dont have a WKC german bayonet type of KS98 and S98, i use as quick reference the R.Williams vol.I. bayonet book, as the S98 part dont have dated the WKC bayonet on p.367, i looked for WKC marking in S98/05 part on page 434 there is a picture in 3 row on right with S98/05nAS by WK&C/Solingen declared as W15 dated, unfortunally the same identical picture is on bayonet nr.324 on page 450, where is this properly marked bayonet S98/05aA marked with FA07 on spine , also for early S98/05 production,the WK&C/Solingen is on right side of blade and identical picture, so it was done a error in the book, and i dont verified it on other places.
I observed now where by me started the error opinion, as i dont have a WKC german bayonet type of KS98 and S98, i use as quick reference the R.Williams vol.I. bayonet book, as the S98 part dont have dated the WKC bayonet on p.367, i looked for WKC marking in S98/05 part on page 434 there is a picture in 3 row on right with S98/05nAS by WK&C/Solingen declared as W15 dated, unfortunally the same identical picture is on bayonet nr.324 on page 450, where is this properly marked bayonet S98/05aA marked with FA07 on spine , also for early S98/05 production,the WK&C/Solingen is on right side of blade and identical picture, so it was done a error in the book, and i dont verified it on other places.
Last edited:
